As I travel through the south-east I cannot avoid being aware of the
Christian and conservative tone of the population.  Whether it be signs saying “Jesus Saves:, crosses on hillsides, evangelical radio stations or anti-abortion billboards, you can feel a level of religious intensity that I’m just not used to in most areas of Canada.

    While I don’t entirely agree with these ideologies, I really hold no animosity towards them or their true messages.  More often than not, the problem I have is not with the ideologies, but with the frailty of the people swinging them by their tails.

    Christianity claims to be based on the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible.  It is supposed to be full of love and patience and acceptance and turning the other cheek…  This is the message of most of the New Testament.  Believing that the New Testament has priority over the Old Testament is one of the main things distinguishing Christians from Jews. 

    And yet, as I enter the south-east, with it’s dominance of Christianity, I also find porn shops and strip joints on the outskirts of every small town.  I find gun shops and gun shows where everyone from 10 year old kids to 80 year old grandmas walking around talking about rounds and laser sights and calibers.  (Yes I went in and checked one out, absolutely amazed to see thousands of handguns and automatic rifles on display.)  I find people who have an indignation against those who don’t hold their views, as if being Muslim or Gay (or, often, intellectual) nullifies all the teachings of Christ with regards to loving your neighbor, -much as it was with long hair just 40 years ago. 

    Turning to the topic of conservatives, here there is a clear ideology as well.  Conservatives are Right Wing in their political and economic views.  This means that they support a minimum amount of interference or regulation of individual rights by a government.  Capitalism and free enterprise should operate unencumbered, with individuals having eh liberty to create and build their own success.  The American Dream!  (If this all sounds very ego-centric, check out Ayn Rand, who supported and summed up Right-Wing politics in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness.)

    And yet Right-Wing conservatism often becomes a vehicle for greed and exploitation.  The greed comes from a sense of Right-Wing entitlement, while the exploitation rests on Social Darwinism (-still around as much as everybody wants to think it’s dead), -a sort of economic survival of the fittest.  Conservatives, while hating the idea of government control love to manipulate the economy through the collusion of power in big businesses.  Unchecked, Right Wing ideologies turn into corporate totalitarianism (just as unchecked Left Wing ideologies turn into socialist totalitarianism).

CONTINUED...

    Both ideologies have many valid things to contribute to our society.  Both are models which have notable facets.  However, the way they are practiced leaves a lot to be desired.  It seems that both ideologies tend to be attached to a certain personality type, and that type tends to be intolerant and authoritarian.  (Ken Wilber’s meta-model explains this fully, and I’ll get around to talking about that some time in the future.  I know it is a rather harsh statement if no support is provided.)  It’s kind of, “Everybody is free to do what they want, as long as they agree with me.”  Stray outside the norm or the status quo of family values and you will be condemned.

    The worst thing is when the two ideologies get together, which is really odd since they are contrary in so many ways.  Then the ideology really gets muddled and unclear.  Low income Christian families end up voting for Republicans because of so called “family values”, anti-abortion policies, stem cell research and a whole bunch of other things of which hey have no real understanding.  These would be the same Republicans who want to cut social services and favor big businesses.  I’ve never understood that paradox.  You get Christian families who vote for Republican politicians because they promise to reintroduce prayer into the schools, -these same politicians who are running on a platform of less government intervention. 

    I see it here on my visit to the south-east, as I see it anywhere religion or conservatism is pursued with conspicuous flag waving and excess, that the ideology has a thin venire hiding the ugliness of human nature underneath it.  Why?  Because these ideologies (or at least the way they’re commonly practiced) are superficial.  This kind of Christianity is often based on blind faith and conservatism is often based on knee-jerk policies, rules and slogans.  There is very little depth of understanding.  (At least Ayn Rand got that part right.)  Hence the eventual triumph of the darker parts of human nature, -the preachers who get caught with hookers or little boys – the extremist views of the KKK – the corruption and back stabbing in the name of capitalism which led to a massive downfall of Western economy. 

    True human development towards social responsibility demands depth of understanding.  By their very nature, Christianity(or at least that of the evangelical or fundamentalist sort) and hard core, right wing conservatism do not encourage depth of though.  In fact a lot of the time they are based on deception.  They both want an obedient populous, not a critical one. 

    When they are at their best, they make valuable contributions.  But they are generally not at their best because they fail to take into account something that politicians and social analysts cannot afford to ignore.  -Human nature. 

     I’ve made two stops on my way down to Daytona which have taught me a valuable lesson. 

One was at Huntington Beach State Park in N. Carolina.  I camped there cheaply, in spite of its excellent facilities.  Being a State Park, there were also lots of great nature trails, a fascinating board-walk and miles of ocean beach.  I enjoyed the few days I stayed there and felt truly close to the wilderness, in spite of the fact the Myrtle Beach was only about 10 miles north. 
    

     The second was a visit to Blue Spring State park in Florida.  This park protects a spring that feeds the St. John River.  The spring is always the same temperature, so it attracts manatee that are trying to escape the cold river water in the winter months.  There are usually between dozens to hundreds in or around the park, so it is very common to see a large number of them.  The park also does a two-hour boat ride up the river, narrated by a very knowledgeable captain.  Again, there was no shortage of wildlife, with alligators and huge numbers of wild birds on display.  We even surprised a feral pig. 
 

     The lesson learned is to not ignore the many State Parks which often get totally bypassed.  A little research will definitely expose some real gems.  These two parks will probably end up being the highlight of my road trip. 
 

     Here are a few pictures.  I’ll be posting more (and perhaps have refined them a bit more) on the web site when I get back. 

     I guess it's time to go out and take advantage of all the flexible time I've got after retirement.  I haven't really written too much about the whole retirement thing, but the extra time I've had has allowed me to keep this blog much more up to date than it ever was previously. The time has been easy-going, perhaps a little too much so on occasion.  No complaints.

     So a road trip is just what I need now, to shake things up and provide some adventure.  I'm heading south, with a few rough destinations.  I realize that I'll be down in the States during the Thanksgiving weekend and Black Friday.  That may be an adventure in itself.  I'll try to work on some good photography so I can share some pictures here, like I did on the SW trip two summers ago.  I'm taking Bertha (my trailer) and hopefully will have regular access to Internet so I can post my progress.  I will probably be reaquaining myself with the Wal-Mart network. 

     Being out of any routine and doing a fair bit of driving always stimulates new thoughts for me, so who knows what may pop up here in the next week or so...

     Last year about this time the previous version of this blog ended up in a long discussion about scientific and medical research.  The discussion started about the controversy around flu shots and whether or not we should trust the medical "expert" opinion to take them.  A lot of the discussion focused on the possible links between vaccines containing mercury and the causes of autism.  Unfortunately, the discussion kind of bogged down there, with the participants more interested in beating to death one small issue rather that examining the bigger picture.  The discussion turned to talking about the nature of scepticism, with the self proclaimed sceptics seemingly being sceptical of anything that questioned the status quo and supporting hard scientific research rather than questioning it.

     Narrowing the discussion to any link between autism and vaccines misses the main point, regardless of whether that link eventually proves to be true or false.  The big picture is the state of medical and pharmaceutical research, and whether it should be trusted.  The big question is whether medical and pharmaceutical research is motivated by public interest or by profit.

     Last month's Discover magazine contained a great article titled "Reckless Medicine", which sums up the criticisms and scepticism that I was trying to focus on last year.  Its research shows that "Less than half the surgeries, drugs and tests that doctor's recommend have been proved effective."  While a lot of money goes onto research and development in order to get a product or procedure approved, less than 1 % of funding goes into any follow up research to judge whether it is effective, -and the little research that is done strongly suggests that effectiveness is random and unreliable.  Drugs are misrepresented to doctors.  Medical procedures often cause more harm in side effects than the good they are intended to do.  Many surgeries are completely unnecessary.  Discover is admittedly a lay magazine, but this article is well researched and shows with solid arguments that depending on medical experts to make scientifically sound decisions about medical treatment (including whether or not taking the flu vaccine is advisable) is far from a sure thing. 

     Sceptics should question the status quo, not the alternatives.

     I’ve been wading through Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, for a few months now.  It has been advertized as science responding to the question of whether God is necessary in order to explain the universe.  That, however, turns out to be a very small part of it.  The book was a delight to read because (he says with full modesty) I found so many ideas in it that have at one time or another rolled around this old noggin of mine. 

     In the first third of the book Hawkins put forth an idea that got me a “D” on a philosophy essay in university.  He postulates that true reality is impossible to define.  The best we can do in any situation is to create a model which attempts to describe reality.  These models will always be more or less accurate, but more importantly, they will attempt to relate reality from a particular perspective or purpose.  It goes back to one of my favourite saying, “The map is not the landscape.”  No map can accurately represent a landscape, but each one can tell you something important an accurate, as far as it goes.  A map showing you the topography of an area gives you accurate information,  but doesn’t tell you anything about, say, the religious beliefs of the inhabitants.  Any model that we create to describe reality works the same way.  It may tell part of a story, but never all of it.  (Please note that this is not an argument for Relativism.  Maps can be inaccurate or can be insignificant.  So can models for reality.)  Understanding this about reality gives you two very important pieces of information.  1) Whatever model you are working with is incomplete.  2) Whatever model you are working with, there exist other models that might give you a perspective which is just as valuable. 

     This is a little heavy, but I really think that it is one of the most important things that people can learn.  Conflicts ranging from broken relationships to world wars are based on different models of reality.  Especially when it comes to religious issues, different ways of understanding the cosmos are at the heart of the conflict. 

     There are, it seems to me, two ways to supersede this.  One is by understanding the big picture.  This is why I like the work of Ken Wilber so much.  His is a meta-model.  A model that shows you how to navigate and evaluate models.  The second way is to strip away the model and try to approach the essence.  In effect, instead of looking at the maps, take a walk in the landscape.  This, I believe, is a major benefit of meditation.  Through meditation you begin to strip away facades, emotional baggage and over-analysis from your perceptions.  That true reality is a mystery, but that doesn’t meant that you can’t approach it, like a calculus of perception. 

     In the second third of Hawking’s book, he proceeds to wow us with an overview of quantum physics, including his theories of multiple universes and why they mathematically have to exist.  It’s heavy stuff, and I have to admit that he lost me a few times, but what I understood was utterly fascinating. 

     And in the final third of the book, he addresses the God question.  He begins by showing that if the physical laws of the universe were even a tiny bit different from what they actually are, life in the universe would be impossible.  The universe seems tailor made for the emergence of life.  Yes, you may be as confused as I was, since this seems like a pretty good argument for the existence of God in some form.  But then he proceeds to bring out the multiple universes theory again, saying that our universe is just one of perhaps thousands or millions, and life emerged here because it just so happens that this is the one where it could.  Perhaps (and likely) most or all of the other universes don’t contain life and the one I’m typing this in is randomly the one chance in a million that the laws of physics played out exactly the right way.  It’s like saying that life on Earth is not special because there are billions of potential planets in the galaxy, and this is just the one that happened to have all the perfect conditions.  Or, to put it another way, there is the old story about the infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters, and one of them randomly typing out one of Shakespeare’s plays. 

     The argument works, but I can’t say that I find it very powerful or compelling.  First, it seems a bit drastic to invent a theory of multiple universes just to plug a loophole that might give theology some ammunition.  Secondly, if we’re going to invent multiple universes to answer the question, “Why our universe?” then it just differs the question to, “Why multiple universes?”

     It’s an effective argument against classical religious theology, -the idea of the old man with the beard sitting up in the clouds making decisions.  But it’s not effective against other spiritual models.  At best it weakly proves that God is not necessary, but it does not discount God.  Einstein was a theist.  He believed that there was a creative force in the universe that promoted complexity and evolution.  The eastern discipline of Taoism says much the same thing, as does certain interpretations of Native American spiritualism.  Certainly some of the ideas in Ken Wilber’s work on transcendental spirituality provides models of God which are completely different from those of the formal religions. 

     Finally, I was really tickled by the last chapter in the book where Hawkins resurrects “The Game of Life”.  This is a computer program that I encountered back in my university days when I had an opportunity to attend lectures by Rudy Rucker, a noted scientist in the field of Chaos Theory.  I’ve always thought this program contained highly valuable insight into the way that the universe works.  The program shows how a simple set of rules result in order and stability.  Patterns and order seem to emerge from random conditions.  Order seems to be inherent in the universe.  The slightest stimulus can set off a reaction that completely changes everything.  And a large enough playing surface will produce lasting stability, while a smaller surface is subject to instability and inconsistency.  I can’t begin to tell you all the ways in which these simple facts apply to and answer questions about our reality.  It’s a pretty good model, and it would take a book on its own to fully explore. 

     And so, while Hawking has demonstrated that the universe could exist without God, he’s far from ruled God out of the picture.  Atheists would argue that it’s good science to take the simplest explanation, but scientists have to remember that science is just another model. 

     The story line for Hereafter follows three separate situations, merging them together into one common point in the final ten minutes of the film.  As storytelling goes, it’s nicely done, bringing into play a kind of mystical synchronicity which suits the central ideas of the story well.  Each of the stories has its own compelling weight.  The acting and all the technical cinema stuff was quite good...

     And yet the movie left me unsatisfied.  It’s like it was all introduction and then when things got more meaningful it was over.  As the final scene faded out I certainly didn’t feel like there was any kind of closure.  The writer would probably tell you that this was deliberate, but it still didn’t feel right.  ...Like a superficiality. 

This movie gets a C+ ... or maybe a B-  ...somewhere around there.

OK, enough of these slow paced movies.  I need to see something blow up!

     Yes, this is an unsolicited promotional statement.

     I think that Cinema Clock is a fantastic  movie guide website that more people should use.  It is much more than just a source of info for where and when movies are playing, although it does a great job of that.  It is the reviews and ratings of movies that are really valuable.  Hundreds of reviews are regularly posted for movies, even obscure ones.  The reviews involve ratings along with demographic information so that when you look up a movie you not only can see overall ratings (on a scale of 10), but it is analysed according to age and gender.  So you can determine that a movie appeals more to women or men, and whether it appeals to young or old.  You can then go to the actual reviews to check out comments and even respond to them (if you really have nothing better to do). 
   
    Hundreds of reviews by ordinary viewers is a nice change from the slick and often smug reviews written my critics in the media or accessed on Rotten Tomatoes.  They have their place, but often they don’t jive with the opinions of the average moviegoer.  And if the latest installation of some mindless, frat-boy comedy gets great reviews from viewers, but is panned by the critics, it is easy enough to figure out by looking at the spread of ratings and the actual reviews. 

     One of my favourite types of movies is the art film that only gets ratings of 10 or 1.  People either love it or hate it.  Those are often the most interesting films, although occasionally they tend to be stinkers.    One of each of these are Uncle Boonmee and Never Let Me Go. 

     Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, is a movie from Thailand which got amazing reviews from the art film circle when it originally came out.  It is listed as a comedy, which I just don’t get.  In fact I don’t think I got it at all.  It’s possible that I missed something, especially since I think I slept through some of the scenes where the camera remained unmoving on a bush or tree for several minutes, or a monk taking an uneventful shower.  The most interesting scene involved what I think was a catfish raping a woman.  (At least it wasn’t a typewriting, as in Naked Lunch.)  If this film was complimented just because it was a film from Thailand, that’s like praising a scribbled drawing from a blind person.  It’s not enough.  Seldom have I ever been in a film where I was looking forward to the end of the ordeal.  I kept looking for some kind of “past lives” theme or some layers of meaning, - and they were totally elusive. 
This one gets an F

     Never Let Me Go is a Sci-Fi thriller based on a famous novel by Kazuo Ishiguro.  It is a slow, plodding, vey gothic film, which is why it scored a lot of very low ratings.  However, it’s strength is in the darkness of the mood and the depressing melancholy of the characters, -if you’re into that sort of thing.  It does what it does exceptionally well, but it’s not and never attempts to be an action film.  Lots of people can’t handle that.  Not popular with the younger crowd, although it does have a decent romantic side to it. 
This one gets a B+